Enewsletter

Enewsletter • January 5, 2003

We thought we would lead off the new
year with this essay, which gets to the heart of Vegan
Outreach's motivation.

Working in Defense of Animals

by Matt Ball

Since the publication of Animal Liberation in
1975 and the founding of People for the Ethical
Treatment of Animals in 1980 (to mention just two
seminal events), animal rights and welfare organizations
have spent hundreds of millions dollars, with volunteers
working endless hours, trying to improve the treatment
of animals in the United States. PETA alone has
over 600,000 members and an eight-figure annual
budget. From McDonald’s reforms and the Florida
breeding sow initiative to a New York Times Magazine
cover
story and widespread
media coverage of open rescues of laying hens,
the treatment of animals is now a matter of wide
public debate. Animal advocates and the term “animal
rights” have become fixtures in American society.

The State of Animals Today

A few years into the new millennium, with several
decades of animal advocacy behind us, it is shocking
that the number of animals exploited and killed
in the United States
has far more than doubled since 1975. At the same
time, the treatment of most of these animals is
worse today than ever before.

Although every animal in a lab, pound, or fur farm
deserves our consideration, ~99 percent of all the
animals killed in the United
States are killed to be eaten.
In recent years, the annual increase in the
number of land animals slaughtered for food has
been much greater than the total number of
animals killed for fur, in labs, and at shelters,
combined. In other words, each year in the
United States:

The number of animals killed in shelters is approximately equal
to the human population of New Jersey.

The number of animals killed for fur is approximately equal to the human
population of Illinois.

The number
of animals killed in experimentation is approximately equal to the human
population of Texas.

The increase in the number of land animals
farmed and slaughtered is greater than the total
human population of the United
States.

The total number of mammals and birds farmed and
slaughtered is approximately equal to one and two-thirds
times the entire human population of Earth.

Hidden away from the public eye, farmed animals endure an excruciating existence.
Written descriptions can't convey the true horror of what goes on in factory
farms. Photographs and videos come
closer – layer hens with open sores, covered with feces, sharing their tiny
cage with decomposing corpses of fellow hens whose wings, faces, or feathers
were trapped in the cage such that they couldn’t get to food or water
(Compassion Over Killing’s “Hope for the Hopeless”); pigs sodomized by metal
poles, beaten with bricks, skinned while still conscious (PETA’s “Pig Farm
Investigation”); steers, pigs, and birds desperately struggling on the slaughterhouse
floor after their throats are cut (Farm Sanctuary’s “Humane Slaughter?”,
PETA’s “Meet Your Meat”). But even these tapes can’t communicate the smell,
the noise, the desperation, and most of all, the fact that each of these
animals – and billions more unseen by any camera or any caring eye – continue
to suffer like this, every minute of every day.

If we are concerned with the suffering of all
animals, not just the most photogenic or most
widely-seen, these facts demand we reconsider our
focus. As The Economist pointed out in a
1995 cover story, animal advocates in the United
States have focused on fur
and medical research, while advocates in England
and much of Europe have focused on animals killed
for food. As a result, not only is vegetarianism
more widespread in some countries in Europe, animals
there are also afforded much greater protection
throughout much of the EU.

The Choice for Activists

Given the unfathomable horrors
of factory farms, the overwhelming numbers of animals involved, and the
fact that every individual in society makes choices every day that can
perpetuate the suffering or help end it, it is hard to imagine a compelling
argument as to why the animal liberation movement should focus on a different
issue. Of course, it would be nice if we could address all areas
of exploitation and suffering at once. But as individuals and as a movement,
our time and resources are extremely limited, especially in comparison
to the industries we seek to change or abolish. When viewed in light of
the vast annual increase in the number of animals bred and killed in the
United States each year, the truism “When you choose to do one thing, you
are choosing not to do another” is more poignant than ever.

Having participated in a variety
of animal advocacy measures – from protests, public fasts, and civil disobedience
to presentations, tables, and letter writing – I have found no more effective
way of working in defense of animals than promoting vegetarianism through
positive outreach. Showing people what goes on in factory farms and providing
them with alternatives can serve not only to remove support from factory
farms, but also to bring about a significant change in society’s fundamental
view of animals. Even without including the abstract idea of “societal
change,” the numbers are compelling. On average, each American eats nearly
three-dozen factory-farmed mammals and birds a year – over 2,700 in a lifetime!
Convincing just one person to change his or her diet can spare more
animals than have been saved by most of the high profile campaigns against
animal research, fur, canned hunts, and circuses.

Purity vs. Progress

Addressing modern animal agriculture is the best
use of our limited time and resources to alleviate
animal suffering. How, though, should we proceed?
For caring people who are aware of what goes on
in factory farms and industrial slaughterhouses,
outrage and anger are common – almost inevitable.
The difficulty is in finding a constructive outlet
for this anger. With meat eating firmly entrenched
in our culture, factory farms hidden, and people’s
inconsistent attitudes towards animals (those we
love, those we eat) tolerated, promoting compassionate
eating can be taxing on activists. Frustrated by
their inability to make large changes in society
– to organize armies to storm the factory farms
or pass laws abolishing them – and feeling that
incremental, one-person-at-a-time change is too
slow, many activists give up on outreach-based advocacy
altogether. They may then turn to what they can
control: themselves. They may pursue personal purity,
eschewing whey, honey, sugar, film, pesticides,
manure, concrete, medicine, etc. – everything they
perceive as connected to animal exploitation.

The desire to avoid complicity
with any aspect of animal exploitation is understandable, but this inward
turn can actually counteract efforts to prevent animal suffering. In a
society where the cruelty inherent in eating a chicken’s leg is not recognized,
few people will be able to identify with an activist who shuns a veggie
burger because it is cooked on the same grill as beef burgers. Unnecessary
suffering and cruelty-free options are no longer the focus if, in our zeal
to defend veganism, we equate the suffering of oysters and shrimp with
that of veal calves and breeding sows. Most people are going to have a
hard time giving vegetarianism serious consideration when they perceive
us to be concerned about insects’ rights, sugar processed with bone char, microingredients such
as diglycerides, and so forth.

If we are to work effectively on
behalf of animals instead of in defense of our veganism, we must encourage
everyone to boycott cruelty. We can’t do this by fostering the impression
that “It’s so hard to be vegan – animal products are in everything,” acting
as if veganism is a religion with
adherence to dogma the sole issue, implying that every farm – from the
largest mega-factory to the smallest free-range organic farm – is equally
cruel, or arguing that harvesting honey is a holocaust.

As Cleveland Amory commented, people
have an infinite capacity to rationalize – especially when it comes to
something they want to eat. It follows that the vast majority of people
are more than happy to ignore the implications of eating animals, and instead
bicker over the number of field mice killed during crop harvests, “your
baby or your dog,” whether milk is a “deadly poison,” the plight of third-world
farmers, gelatin in film, and so on. Anything that keeps the focus off
factory farms is more than welcome to people who are understandably resistant
to separating themselves from friends and associating with a judgmental
vegan crowd.

Our example must always reflect
our underlying goal – our actions should be clearly motivated by a reasoned,
practical opposition to cruelty. Rather than simply avoiding something
because it isn’t “vegan,” we should always have a clear explanation for
the consequences of our actions. It is better to allow for uncertainty – for
example, telling people that we have decided to give clams the benefit
of the doubt because we don’t know whether they are capable of the subjective
experience of suffering – than to simply recite “clams aren’t vegan.”

Beyond Sound Bites, Beyond Veganism

At Vegan Outreach, we have found the most effective
way of getting past these barriers is to avoid making
ourselves or our veganism the issue. Rather, we
work to keep the focus on undeniable yet avoidable
cruelty. Since most individuals have a cursory awareness
of vegetarianism and animal rights, it is necessary
to move beyond sound bites to distributing compelling
and accurate information if we want to create real
change in people’s attitudes and actions. This can
be done in a number of ways that avoid making people
feel defensive or opening irresistible topics such
as Grandpa Carnivore living to be 94. The easiest
way to reach out to people is by distributing literature.
Providing others with printed information allows
them to digest the ideas and implications on their
own time, without becoming angry and feeling the
need to justify themselves and their past actions.

Even in this least confrontational
setting, we shouldn’t give people a reason to ignore the issue of cruelty
or dismiss the message because of the messenger. The general public is
constantly bombarded with “documented
facts” from all sides (the healthfulness
of the meat-heavy Atkins diet, the welfare benefits of farrowing stalls, and so on). These “experts” are often totally
and passionately convinced they have the truth on their side. The public
won’t be swayed by what we say simply because we, too, are convinced our
arguments are correct. We need to be appropriately wary of repeating claims
that support our position and dismissing those that don’t.

Knowing the “truth” is cold comfort if we can’t
create any change for those suffering. Not only
should we stick to materials that our target audience
will find convincing, we also need to meet people
halfway, reaching out to them in a way that opens
them up to considering the ideas. For example, if
avoiding the words “vegan” or “animal rights,” or
handing out a Christian booklet such as “Honoring
God's Creation”, or displaying happy animal
images instead of graphic pictures of cruelty makes
a certain person or audience more likely to read
the information, this is what we should do.

Positive, constructive outreach
requires that we check our egos at the door. Everyone is unique, and to
maximize the amount of good accomplished, we need to understand people’s
motivations and goals. A good way of doing this is to read Dale Carnegie’s How To Win
Friends and Influence People, as well as Robert B. Cialdini’s books
on the psychology of influence.

We must do everything we can, but
we can’t expect (our vision of) perfection from others. Given that per
capita consumption of animals is at an all-time high in our country today
(ERS Agricultural Outlook / January-February 2002), it is unrealistic
and counterproductive to expect everyone to convert to our particular vision
of pure vegetarianism. Rather, we need people to recognize the cruelties
of modern agriculture and take steps – however tentative or gradual – to
end their support of factory farms. If they buy meat from an organic farmer
down the road, or continue to eat fish, or don’t avoid all dairy, we should
neither vilify
them (“Go vegan or go ... jump in a lake!!”) nor spend our limited
time and resources trying to “fully convert” them. Instead, we need to
support and encourage everyone in the steps they take, and reach out to
others.

We don’t have a duty to speak for
the animals; we have an obligation to be heard for the animals.

A History of Success

Our experience at Vegan Outreach
shows it is possible to be honest while still being efficient and effective.
Each day we receive feedback from individuals who have stopped eating animals
and become active in helping them after receiving a copy of Why Vegan? or Vegetarian
Living. With a budget that is a tiny fraction of the major animal groups’,
the members of Vegan Outreach distributed over half a million copies of
our literature in 2002. For each person convinced to change their diet because of a piece
of literature such as Why Vegan?or Vegetarian
Living, the cost per animal saved is a fraction of a penny. The investment
is only as much time as it takes to stock a public display, or to ask someone
if they would like some information on vegetarianism.

At its core, the compelling concept behind being
a vegan is working to end suffering. But we must
always remember that the bottom line is suffering,
not veganism. Being vegan is a powerful response
to the tragedy of industrial animal agriculture,
but it is only the first step. Supporting and participating
in positive, constructive outreach will have an
impact that is orders of magnitude greater than
being a pure – but isolated and impotent – vegan.

Our ultimate goal must be for everyone to act from
respect and compassion. Our actions should reflect
these values.

Vegan Outreach is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization dedicated to reducing the suffering of farmed animals by promoting informed, ethical eating.